IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Even so, this article shows violent crime in the UK going up while the US is going down...

That article gets its data from a 2003 Daily Mail article. It notes an increase in police reported crime after standards for collecting that data were improved. British Crime Survey data collected over the same period doesn't show an increase in crime.

That article gets its data from a 2003 Daily Mail article. It notes an increase in police reported crime after standards for collecting that data were improved. British Crime Survey data collected over the same period doesn't show an increase in crime.

And the actual data used in that article was up to April the previous year.

Even so, this article shows violent crime in the UK going up while the US is going down...

UK statistics are also going to show more dramatic changes than ones from the USA because our instances of gun crime are so rare. For example in 2011-12 there were 1,151 instances of possessing a firearm with intent to commit a crime, down from 1,385 from the previous year. That is a drop of 17%. Meanwhile homicide was 550 in 2011-12 compared to the previous year at 638, a drop of 14%.

The article you linked to uses very out of date stats over a period of time that there was an increase, backed up by an article from the sensationalist UK newspaper the Daily Mail. It is reporting on firearms offences as a whole. That will include offences by lawful firearms holders who forget to renew their certificate on time and end up illegally possessing firearms. It also does not show how many offences are committed with replica firearms as the real ones are so hard to get hold of.

This is the second time an examination of a claim by an American pro gun advocate has been found wanting as it is not comparing like to like.

Here is the most reliable study in the UK, compiled by civil servants at the Home Office.

My next idea for the thread is to draft a list of penalties for those not in compliance with the current laws...meaning, how should those owning/carrying/using an illegally possessed firearm be punished? Also, for those selling to known criminals or "losing" guns.

I'll take some suggestions from the audience before I post an outline.

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

NYC gun laws are even stricter than the rest of the State...all guns are essentially banned in the NYC Burroughs unless you have a pretty damn good reason for having one. Jumping through hoops there is more like swimming the Hudson in December with your feet tied together and your hair on fire.

Doesn't this make the comparative stats even more disturbing? If NYC's licencing laws don't work, why do London's?

Nessie suggests that, in London, although there is more violent crime, firearms are simply not used as frequently and therefore violence results in fewer deaths. If this is so, then NYC's licensing laws don't prevent the use of firearms in crime in the city, I think that raises the question - why? Is this something that can be solved by extending licensing laws over a larger area (so that, for e.g. NYC's laws aren't undermined by looser neigbhouring laws) or is it that licensing laws are generally ineffective?

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

My next idea for the thread is to draft a list of penalties for those not in compliance with the current laws...meaning, how should those owning/carrying/using an illegally possessed firearm be punished? Also, for those selling to known criminals or "losing" guns.

I'll take some suggestions from the audience before I post an outline.

I don't think that mandatory minimums and the like are likely to be helpful. They don't work in drug enforcement, I don't see that they would work in firearms enforcement. I suppose it might make sense from a prevention point of view to prohibit those who "lose" guns from owning guns. But in that net you would catch at least some people who took all reasonable precautions but nevertheless had a gun stolen from them.

Doesn't this make the comparative stats even more disturbing? If NYC's licencing laws don't work, why do London's?

Nessie suggests that, in London, although there is more violent crime, firearms are simply not used as frequently and therefore violence results in fewer deaths. If this is so, then NYC's licensing laws don't prevent the use of firearms in crime in the city, I think that raises the question - why? Is this something that can be solved by extending licensing laws over a larger area (so that, for e.g. NYC's laws aren't undermined by looser neigbhouring laws) or is it that licensing laws are generally ineffective?

I am sure it down to availability. No matter what licensing laws are introduced, there are so many guns in the hands of criminals and criminals find them so easy to get hold of that the laws have no effect, as they obviously do not obey the law.

Quote:

I don't think that mandatory minimums and the like are likely to be helpful. They don't work in drug enforcement, I don't see that they would work in firearms enforcement. I suppose it might make sense from a prevention point of view to prohibit those who "lose" guns from owning guns. But in that net you would catch at least some people who took all reasonable precautions but nevertheless had a gun stolen from them.

I am sure another reason why UK criminals don't do guns so much is that they know there are pretty much mandatory minimums. A handgun was once described to me as 5 years. In the end the guy got 7 years in prison. We even lock up church ministers and members of the SAS who are found with illegally held guns. So the criminals know, use a gun and they will go away for what we regard as long periods of time in prison.

Sorry, but no way you get those penalties that harsh for anything that doesn't involve a violent crime. It would never pass the muster of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the SCOTUS. Some of those possession penalties are harsher than aggravated assault and rape.

I am sure it down to availability. No matter what licensing laws are introduced, there are so many guns in the hands of criminals and criminals find them so easy to get hold of that the laws have no effect, as they obviously do not obey the law.

I think you're probably right on availability, but proving that it is down to availability is a different matter.

Quote:

I am sure another reason why UK criminals don't do guns so much is that they know there are pretty much mandatory minimums. A handgun was once described to me as 5 years. In the end the guy got 7 years in prison. We even lock up church ministers and members of the SAS who are found with illegally held guns. So the criminals know, use a gun and they will go away for what we regard as long periods of time in prison.

I disagree. I don't think that mandatory minimum sentence help: criminals do not commit crimes in the expectation of being caught. However, the length of sentences in the UK demonstrates something else: firearms offenses are regarded as very serious, by society in general. In the U.S. I have the impression (which may or may not be right) that illegal possession of a firearm would be regarded as something of a peccadillo. I think it is the attitude that matters, rather than minimum sentences.

Sorry, but no way you get those penalties that harsh for anything that doesn't involve a violent crime. It would never pass the muster of "cruel and unusual punishment" in the SCOTUS. Some of those possession penalties are harsher than aggravated assault and rape.

If SCOTUS believed that long prison terms for non-violent crimes were cruel and unusual, most of our drug sentencing laws would have been overturned.

our possession laws aren't that punitive, it's our distribution laws that carry a punch. If his above list of penalties applied lower sentences for possession of an illegal firearm and bigger one's for intent to distribute an illegal firearm, maybe you'd have something.

Article 2: Aggravated Possession I
(Possession of a legal or illegal firearm during a crime other than homicide or manslaughter, but NOT brandished)
It shall be illegal to possess a firearm of any type during the commission of another crime, even if the firearm is not used in a threatening manner.
Penalties, if convicted, are as follows:
1st Offense: No less than ten (10) years incarceration.
2nd Offense: No less than fifteen (15) years incarceration.
3rd Offense: No less than twenty (20) years incarceration.
Any offense thereafter carries an additional 20 year imprisonment.
Additional time for illegal (non-registered) firearm added per penalties outlined in Article 1.
Penalties listed here are in addition to any time incurred by the initial offense(s).

This section strikes me as potentially problematic, what constitutes a crime in this context? Illegal Parking? I absolutely see what you are trying to do and agree with your intention, but so long as carrying a gun is legal there is the potential that a legal carrier with break a minor law, even unintentionally while carrying and fall foul of this.

I think you're probably right on availability, but proving that it is down to availability is a different matter.

I disagree. I don't think that mandatory minimum sentence help: criminals do not commit crimes in the expectation of being caught. However, the length of sentences in the UK demonstrates something else: firearms offenses are regarded as very serious, by society in general. In the U.S. I have the impression (which may or may not be right) that illegal possession of a firearm would be regarded as something of a peccadillo. I think it is the attitude that matters, rather than minimum sentences.

This section strikes me as potentially problematic, what constitutes a crime in this context? Illegal Parking? I absolutely see what you are trying to do and agree with your intention, but so long as carrying a gun is legal there is the potential that a legal carrier with break a minor law, even unintentionally while carrying and fall foul of this.

I think it should be something along the lines of a similar Florida law, that enhances the penalty if someone commits a felony while in possession of a firearm.

I think it should be something along the lines of a similar Florida law, that enhances the penalty if someone commits a felony while in possession of a firearm.

That's setting the bar a little higher than I would suggest, maybe establishment of criminal intent, I'd also include certain alcohol/drug related offences, drunk and disorderly for example. If you're going to drink enough that you're judgement is impaired you shouldn't be packing (or vice versa).

This section strikes me as potentially problematic, what constitutes a crime in this context? Illegal Parking? I absolutely see what you are trying to do and agree with your intention, but so long as carrying a gun is legal there is the potential that a legal carrier with break a minor law, even unintentionally while carrying and fall foul of this.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I think it should be something along the lines of a similar Florida law, that enhances the penalty if someone commits a felony while in possession of a firearm.

You're right, I should have been a bit more specific. It's meant to come into play for felony charges, not misdemeanors. Burglary, Assault, etc...

Maybe even felony DWI? Might keep some gun-lovers from getting behind the wheel? (ETA: I see PJ mentioned something similar.)

__________________--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!